APHC010229002016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 6599/2016 Between: 1. RAVINDRANAIK MUDE, S/O ANKALNAIK MUDE, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O SUGGALI THANDA, SOMIREDDYPALLI VILLAGE, B. MADAM MANDAL, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 516 503. ...PETITIONER AND 1. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, REG. OFFICE: G.9, ALL YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI - 400 051, MAHARASTRA STATE, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED MKTG DIVISION, A.P. STATE OFFICE, NO.3-6-436 TO 438, 2ND FLOOR, NASPEN HOUSE, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD - 29, REP. BY ITS APPELLATE AUTHORITY & GM TAPSO. 3. THE SENIOR AREA MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED., INDANE AREA OFFICE, G.V.R. TOWERS, 2ND FLOOR, BHARATHI NAGAR, RING ROAD, VIJAYAWADA - 520 008, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing the Rejection Letter VAO/029/02, dated 22.01.2016, issued by the 3rd respondent 2 JS,J W.P.No.6599 of 2016 herein, thereby rejecting the application dated 19.01.2012 made by the petitioner for award of Rajiv Gandhi Grameena LV (RGGLV) at Somireddypalli, Kadapa District under ST Category, pursuant to the Advertisement dated 19.11.2011, Mktg. Plan: RGGLV 2009-10, on the ground that the land in Survey No.393/2, offered by the petitioner for Godown is a Government (DKT) land, inspite of the "No Objection Certificate" in Ref: A/180/2015, dated 25.05.2015, issued by the Tahsildar, B. Mattam Mandal, Y.S.R. District, as illegal, arbitrary and Consequently direct the Respondents to award Rajiv Gandhi Grameena LV (RGGLV) at Somireddypalli, Kadapa District under ST Category, pursuant to the Advertisement dated 19.11.2011, Mktg. Plan: RGGLV 2009-10 in favour of the petitioner herein and to pass such other order or orders as this -Flon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP 8404 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Rejection Letter VAO/029/02, dated 22.01.2016, issued by the 3rd respondent herein, thereby rejecting the application dated 19.01.2012 made by the petitioner for award of Rajiv Gandhi Grameena LV (RGGLV) at Somireddypalli, Kadapa District under ST Category, pursuant to the Advertisement dated 19.11.2011, Mktg. Plan: RGGLV 2009-10, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N SHOBA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. DOMINIC FERNANDES This Court made the following: 3 JS,J W.P.No.6599 of 2016 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 22.01.2016 issued by the 3rd respondent, rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for allotment of godown under S.T. category in pursuance of the advertisement dated 19.12.2011. 2. The respondents, vide notification dated 19.12.2011, invited applications from eligible candidates for the allotment of a godown under the Rajiv Gandhi Grameena LPG Vitarak Distributor (RGGLV) Scheme at Somireddypalli Village, BrahmamgariMattam Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. The petitioner, belonging to the S.T. community, submitted an application on 19.01.2012 and was selected in the draw of lots held on 03.03.2015. 3. On 09.03.2015, the Sales Officer, under reference number VJAO/FVC/Somireddypalli, addressed a letter to the Tahsildar of B. Mattam Mandal, requesting confirmation of whether the land remains government property and if it is suitable for use as an LPG godown or distributorship. Subsequently, on 25.05.2015, the Tahsildar, under reference number A/180/2015, issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC) permitting the installation of an LPG godown at Somireddypalli Village, B. Mattam Mandal, covering an area of 0.50 acres in Sy.No.393/2. 4 JS,J W.P.No.6599 of 2016 4. Furthermore, the Government of India issued guidelines on March 21, 2017, governing the grant of No Objection Certificates (NOC) by the District Authority. Guideline No. 3 explicitly stipulates that obtaining an NOC from the District Authority under Rule 48 of the GAS Cylinder Rules, 2016, is mandatory, as PESO lacks the mechanism to verify land possession details and other aspects related to public safety. 5. The 3rd respondent rejected the petitioner's case without considering the NOC issued by the Tahsildar, stating that a DKT patta cannot be used for godown purposes. 6. In the counter-affidavit submitted by the 3rd respondent, it was stated that the land indicated by the petitioner is classified as Government dry- assessed waste land. If the land is required for public purposes, the Government has the authority to resume it upon payment of compensation. Additionally, the 3rd respondent submitted that, based on the findings of the investigation into the complaint filed by Srinivasulu Reddy, the application of B. Ramdas Naik was rejected. It was further asserted that during field verification, it was established that the land was DKT land, leading to the rejection of the petitioner's candidature. 7. Heard Sri G. Raja Babu, learned counsel, representing Ms. N. Shoba, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Dominic Fernandes, leaned counsel for the respondents. 5 JS,J W.P.No.6599 of 2016 8. The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Tribe (S.T.) category and possessed an extent of 6.48 acres in Sy.Nos. 393/2 and 393/3 of Somireddypalli Village, Brahmamgari Mattam Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, prior to the issuance of the notification by the respondents. Based on the letter from the Sales Officer, Ref. VJAO/FVC/Somireddypalli, dated 09.03.2015, the M.R.O. issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC), which holds a valid authorization. The alleged deficiency regarding the DKT Patta was neither flagged at the time of scrutiny nor during the site inspection. However, the 3rd respondent, without raising any objections or issuing prior notice, rejected the NOC on the ground that the land in question was classified as DKT Patta land. 9. Once a candidate is selected through a draw of lots, he acquires a legitimate expectation of receiving a letter of intent after document verification. Therefore, the respondents cannot dismiss the petitioner's claim solely on the basis of the M.R.O.'s report, as the final authority with this power is the District Authority. Moreover, the respondent is required to follow the principles of Audi alteram partem and Natural Justice and cannot reach a conclusion without providing notice and an opportunity to be heard. 10. Furthermore, the issuance of a DKT patta to landless poor for agricultural purposes does not automatically preclude leasing the land for 6 JS,J W.P.No.6599 of 2016 LPG storage. If the petitioner obtains the necessary NOC and conversion approval from the District Administration, demonstrating their belonging to the S.T. community and that the land was granted for their livelihood, such steps would aid in safeguarding their livelihood, which is particularly vital for a vulnerable group. 11. In Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Collector & District Magistrate, Jajpur, the High Court of Orissa, in paragraph 10 of its judgment, held that the cancellation of the NOC for the retail outlet was unlawful due to non- compliance with the principles of natural justice. The Court concluded that administrative actions must follow due process and that executive instructions cannot supersede statutory provisions, thereby permitting IOCL to proceed with establishing the new outlet. (emphasis supplied) 12. Further, in Dharmendra Kumar Patidar Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited1, the Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench) has observed as under: <The principles of natural justice are firmly grounded in Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before law and equal protection of law. Through the process of interpretation, procedural safeguards have been read into Article 14 by the Courts. In Delhi transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Union, MANU/SC/0031/1991:AIR 1991 SC 101, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that <the audi alteram partem rule, in essence, 1 MANU/MP/0057/2016 7 JS,J W.P.No.6599 of 2016 enforce the equality clause in Art 14 and it is applicable not only to quasi-judicial bodies but also to administrative order adversely affecting the party in question unless the rule has been excluded by the Act or Regulation or Rule.= Not giving any hearing results in decisions which are arbitrary in nature. Arbitrariness and equality are antithesis of each other. Similarly under Article 21 of the Constitution, no person can be deprived of his life or liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Audi alteram partem forms a part of the procedural due process under the Indian Constitution. Procedure established by law must be just, fair and reasonable and not oppressive, unreasonable or arbitrary.= (emphasis supplied) 13. The fundamental principle governing all proceedings is that the individual concerned must be granted a reasonable opportunity to present his case. The authority must act fairly, justly, reasonably, and impartially. The goal is not merely to conduct a judicial process but to ensure fairness; therefore, the procedure must be just, fair, and reasonable, taking into account the specific circumstances of each case. The principles of natural justice—especially the rule that no one should be condemned without a hearing—are designed to prevent arbitrary action by the authority and to safeguard the rights of the affected person. Although there is no explicit procedural requirement to provide such an opportunity, making a decision 8 JS,J W.P.No.6599 of 2016 without offering an effective hearing before issuing an order is a clear violation of natural justice. 14. A plain reading of the impugned order in the writ petition shows that the petitioner was not provided an opportunity. Therefore, the order should be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice. 15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 22.01.2016, vide Ref.VAO/029/02, issued by the 3rd respondent, is set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the petitioner's case for the purpose of issuing a godown. No order as to costs. As a sequel, any pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM 28th January, 2026 cbs 9 JS,J W.P.No.6599 of 2016 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION No.6599 of 2016 28th January, 2026 cbs